SATURDAY PM, 4TH UPDATE: What a shocker! DreamWorks Animation/Paramount’s Puss In Boots claws its way to #1 tonight with $15.5M Saturday and will win the weekend with an estimated $33M. That’s just -10% off snow-affected Halloween weekend opening. “I guess the strategy of getting out a week early to build word-of-mouth worked,” a studio exec emails me tonight. It easily beat Universal’s much-buzzed Tower Heistwhich made $10M Saturday for only a $25M weekend. (This is like when Cowboys & Aliens got Smurf-ed over the summer.) Sources are telling me that the Brett Ratner-directed comedy caper starring Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy is weak overseas as well: just 3rd in the UK and 5th in Germany, for instance. New Line/Warner Bros’ A Very Harold And Kumar 3D Christmas eked out $5.5M Saturday for a disappointing $14.5M weekend, less than the previous 2D installment Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay‘s $14.9M weekend opening. Both Tower Heist and Harold And Kumar 3D received ‘B’ CinemaScores from audiences. Here’s the Top 10:

FRIDAY PM/SATURDAY AM, 3RD UPDATE: Hang on tight, folks, because this is turning into a bumpy ride. North American box office is still unsettlingly weak just as it’s been since the beginning of August. This weekend’s total gross is running a bad -25% behind last year’s. “The fear is that our total business is in the toilet,” one studio executive sighed to me tonight. Friday’s numbers were too ill-defined for me to declare hits and misses early on. But now, in a big surprise, DreamWorks Animation’s week-old 3D holdover Puss In Boots distributed by Paramount looks like it’s giving Universal’s 2D Tower Heist a run for #1 by Monday morning because of higher ticket prices and more theater bookings. One studio already is counting on the cat beating the cons. Remember, last weekend’s surprise East Coast snowstorm and power outage resulted in the toon’s mediocre debut. The tie depends on Saturday when strong family matinees may swamp nighttime adults at the multiplexes. (Uh-oh: is this another Smurfs beats Cowboys & Aliens situation in the works? But, unlike expensive C&A, the studio claims TH cost only $85M.) Universal was hoping for a late-night surge of African-American and Latino audiences that never materialized.

New Line/Warner Bros’ unabashed raunchfest A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmaslooks surprisingly at the low end of expectations despite the 3D surcharge. Yet it had been tracking well for weeks. This opening is about the same result as the 2D sequel but I wonder if there weren’t enough cheaper theaters booked. After all, its 2,875 runs had 2,943 3D screens. “Maybe Nikki Rocco and Dan Fellman should call off their blood feud,” one rival studio exec suggested to me tonight. “For the second time this year, Universal and Warner opened comedies on the same weekend. Last time was Your Highness and Arthur – and for the second time both pictures will underperform.” Full analysis coming.

12:30 PM: Hollywood studios are worried that the recent box office slump in North America will hurt what is supposed to be a big weekend kicking off the holiday movie season. Already executives are looking for less. “Based on our noon averages, the overall marketplace looks very soft right now,” one exec emails me. Insiders tell me that Universal’s Tower Heist opened with $85K in midnight shows and easily takes #1 today with anywhere from $7.5M to $10.5M depending on the degree of date night wannasee in 3,367 theaters. What was once thought a sure-thing $35+M first weekend is now projected to eke out $30M as if it were an R-rated action comedy like Due Date (32.7M opening) which Uni execs keep using as a comp. But Tower Heist is actually PG-13 directed by Brett Ratner and starring Eddie Murphy and Ben Stiller so should be earning much more. Nevertheless, any double-digit number with a ‘3’ in front of it is reason to celebrate in these days of lowered expectations as young males have abandoned the multiplexes since August. “Tower Heist looks good. Got big break when Puss In Boots moved up,” a source tells me about the Oceans Eleven-style heist movie intended to appeal more to adults. (But I’ve been worried about those trailers that don’t depict even one genuinely funny line or scene.) Tower Heist opens day and date overseas in 21 territories including the UK, Germany, Hong Kong, Sweden, Austria, Taiwan, Spain, India, and South Africa.

DreamWorks Animation’s Puss In Boots distributed by Paramount will have very good hold off last Friday’s/Saturday’s freak East Coast snowstorm and funky Halloween weekend with a $25M outcome for #2. New Line/Warner Bros’ low-budget A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas debuted after midnight in 1,000 locations for $550K which is a franchise best but also the first 3D installment with higher ticket prices. It opens wide today in 2,875 runs with 2,943 3D screens and expectations are for a $4.5M to $5.5M Friday debut to finish #3 with $19M finish which, again, is a gift in these soft attendance times.

As I said previously, worst case scenario this weekend is that Tower Heist can’t crack $30M, Puss In Boots holds for less than $20M, and A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmaswinds up low to mid teens. Don’t expect any other pics to even collect $7M.

241 Comments

It ain't rocket science • on Nov 4, 2011 12:57 pm

The major studios are making (to quote Ron Meyer) shit movies, thus shit grosses will continue. In their defense Universal (Josh Goldstein) is in the process of cleaning house so at least they’re trying.

really? • on Nov 4, 2011 3:17 pm

Cleaning house? Can he fire himself?

Gordo • on Nov 4, 2011 10:52 pm

What’re you talking about? Both films are ‘fresh’ on Rotten Tomatoes.

It’s not the death of film, it’s merely the death of theaters.

Theaters clinging to their monopoly on new movies are going to drag the entire industry down with them.

hert • on Nov 4, 2011 11:07 pm

Then explain why Lion King do so well?

hert • on Nov 4, 2011 11:08 pm

did*

Gordo • on Nov 5, 2011 12:28 am

That just proves my point – for some movies, when people have the option (Lion King was already out on DVD), they will still go to the cinemas.

But I’m less likely to want to see Tower Heist at the cinemas – regardless of the quality of the film – it can be enjoyed just as well on my home theater.

We want choice!

hert • on Nov 5, 2011 2:35 pm

You’re wrong, it’s not the death of film nor the death of theaters. It’s the death of bad movies.

Dawn • on Nov 5, 2011 2:47 pm

Lion King was already a popular movie. I expect Titanic 3D will do big numbers. There’s something wrong when people would rather see movies from more than a decade ago than what’s coming out now. This shows the death of the movie star. There are no stars left. Look above: Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp. Any of those movies could have done more or the same with an unknown or less costly actor. The only real hit in there is Paranormal Activity 3. A $5 million movie on it’s way to over $100 million. It’s time Hollywood came up with a new option. I don’t see any reason to pay more than $50 to take my family to see any of these bad movies. Universal’s own chief admitting that they make trash on the weak of a new release was just idiotic.

Truthteller • on Nov 5, 2011 5:59 am

As if the critics opinion means anything anymore….most critics have lost their jobs, and the ones that are left are all in bed with the studios in order to keep their jobs.

Rotten tomatoes is a prop…only way to tell if a film is good or not these days is via word of mouth.

Gordo • on Nov 5, 2011 10:23 am

No.

Bad movies get low scores, good movies get good scores.

That’s how you know Rotten Tomatoes isn’t in bed with studios.

Ice • on Nov 5, 2011 1:38 pm

Seriously? Rotten Tomatoes deserves its name. It’s rotten to no end. The people who give those “scores” are craving attention clowns and 99% of them are not the pros. No matter what they write about themselves. The total trash is getting the good reviews, the good ones are getting the bad reviews. Totally trashy site. Not only this one unfortunately.
As for the Box Office: Americans are spoiled with the Netflix, Blockbuster, etc. They don’t want to get up from their couche and spend $$8-15 for some movie that they can rent later for a couple of bucks and watch it at home. Add to this those parasites like Rotten Tomatoes that will drown any movie that has the potential for a big attention from the audience and here you have it. No matter how good the movie is they will trash it widely and, sadly, the big part of the potential audience behaves like, sorry, sheeps. They can’t think on their own. They need to be told and led…no matter where.

ari • on Nov 5, 2011 2:02 pm

You are naive. Go on a critic’s junket sometimes.

bobbobkk • on Nov 5, 2011 2:15 pm

Simple illustration. Look at filmographies of stars like Paul Newman in the 50s though De Niro and Pacino in the 80s and maybe Hanks in the 90s. Now look at the filmographies of the actors whom the studios currently use to headline movies.

Stars attract audiences to theaters. Actors become stars by appearing in movies people love. Hollywood studios no longer make movies people love. We no longer have movie stars.

Justin Poppiti • on Nov 6, 2011 8:30 am

Ice, Americans are SMART for waiting to see movies when they are released on DVD.

• on Nov 6, 2011 8:50 am

The only decent critics now are genre critics. ( IMO movie audiences, like those for books and TV shows,heve become fragmented into niches. For example, a few ( not all) horror fan sites give far more informative ( also smarter and better-written)
advice than the old-style critics, who seem intent only to show off what little their liberal arts degrees taught them, rather than really being movie critics. God bless Roger Ebert – the last true movie critic. I don’t know if the rest of them are literally bought off – only they know that – but they are definitely useless.

moraliste • on Nov 6, 2011 8:57 am

Movie audiences are all frgamented into niches, like the consumers of books, magazines, TV. The only critics worth reading are genre critics. ( For example, horror, scifi, feminist, etc. ) They are both more informative and better written than the old-style general newspaper critics.

ROclockCK • on Nov 4, 2011 11:18 pm

Not “shit” movies, so much as blatant “video” fare. These movies simply aren’t worth the coin on the big screen, but will probably all do just fine in the home market. Release something that warrants all the latest exhibition bells and whistles, and people will come.

SallyinChicago • on Nov 5, 2011 12:17 am

I watch the online reporting of new movies and I don’t see any “buzz” about any movies coming out. Normally about this time, there’s buzz about movies coming out….like “Dreamgirls” or “Slumdog Millionaire”…but nobody’s jumping up & down about movies and about this time there should be some hot buzz.

Fan • on Nov 5, 2011 2:14 am

Movies have lost their magic, because the industry is being run by suits instead of charismatic moguls. The Internet has killed any idea of buzz, and made the world a far more cynical place. The moment anything exciting comes out, an army of a million cynics is ready to snark and snarl and spoil the fun for all. The world is saturated with content and we have everything at our fingertips. I have a library of tens of thousands of movies available to me in an instant. Why bother going to the theatre? Here’s the solution; the timid men who run the business need to create stars and giants. Instead of being afraid of them because it will somehow mean a loss of control, they need to get back to what studios used to do, build myths, build living legends. Back stars with charisma, and writers, directors, and producers with real talent. And stop endorsing failure. An A List writer I know who has been through a bit of a rough patch at the box office recently said it didn’t matter; Hollywood is about relationships not track record and as long as he kept his relationships strong, he’d never be out of work. Audiences can sense the jobs-for-the-boys mentality and the fact that execs are regularly making excuses for sub standard product.
The studios need to take risks and try to produce new content that will excite and engage audiences. Put the “show” back in showbusiness. Shock, amaze, excite, engage, but stop pedalling the safe, corporate crap.
I’ve been saying the same thing for years; the movie business will die by a thousand cuts if the guys running it don’t change. The older demographic has had enough, and remembers what good movies were like. The younger demographic has better things to do with their time, and if we can’t get them excited about movies, we’ll lose a generation to video games, television, and the Internet.
And for those who applaud the death of the movie theatres, ask yourselves this; without movie theatres, what differentiates a movie from television? Small scale, small thinking, small world. No thanks.
We need inspirational moguls, not accountants with three types of pencil in their shirt pocket. It’s what we need, but unfortunately given the fact all the studios are part of big conglomerates, we’re very unlikely to get it.

Fan of Fan • on Nov 5, 2011 10:11 am

I 100% agree with Fan. The studios used to be run by people who loved movies and enabled creatives (Filmmakers, Actors, etc…) to take risks have now been overrun by MBAs and suits. One other important factors has been the rise of the modern agency culture. Lew Wasserman was a servant to his clients and knew how to work with the studios. He knew how to play his part in making great movies and it wasn’t about him it was about his clients. Today’s agents and managers are self-absorbed assholes whose taste ends with their expensive suits. It isn’t about their clients, it’s about their bonus and their agency. The financial windfall of the VHS/DVD boom created this culture. Now that it’s giving way to streaming and VOD, this is a chance to run the MBAs and tool agents out of town.

bobby the saint • on Nov 5, 2011 2:19 pm

I agree with the two posters above, “Fan” and “Fan of Fan”, when they say that Hollywood is in dire need of moguls with passion, flair and a commitment to backing people with talent.

Which is why I believe that young Megan Ellison at Annapurna Pictures has a good shot at helping save Hollywood from itself. She’s an uber-producer on the make who has great taste to go along with her financial clout, acumen and solid instincts. Hollywood could use more producers like Ellison — Brian Grazer and Jennifer Roth also come to mind — to thwart the deluge of mediocrity that is the industry’s unfortunate calling card these days.

Fan of fanny Flag • on Nov 5, 2011 4:05 pm

I agree..Hollywood has lost it’s damn grip

anonymouse • on Nov 5, 2011 12:16 pm

1 problem w/ this post: I didn’t get to say this 1st.
Absolutely brilliant.

stevefraser • on Nov 5, 2011 6:55 pm

And whenever I see the name of a superstar in a movie I wonder what Leftwing horsesh*t they are pushing.

AZVick • on Nov 5, 2011 8:13 pm

Thanks for bringing up the politics. Why should America pay hard-earned dollars to support an industry that so contemptuously trashes their values and the country they love? I think that conservatives are more aware of that than ever and Hollywood’s falling bottom line reflects it.

Sam • on Nov 5, 2011 11:52 pm

Reagan was an actor. He worked and loved this so-called vile anti-American industry.

Don’t all you guys rub one out to him at least once a day?

gobnait • on Nov 6, 2011 6:42 am

The naive actors who foolishly share their political views in this grossly divided, partisan climate are driving viewers from their films in droves. They are employed to ACT, not preach and we have had a gutful of the Sean Penns and Alec Baldwins who feel the need to share their political views.

Shakes Spear • on Nov 7, 2011 1:08 am

I’ve been a fan of Bruce Willis since Moonlighting, a fan of Schwarzeneggar since T1. I think Mel Gibson, despite his insanity of the past few years, is one of the best filmmakers alive. Clint Eastwood can almost do no wrong creatively. And I love Sly Stallone so much, I saw that god-awful “Oscar” in a theater back in the day. And I’m a flaming liberal. MOST of the population – including liberals – attends their movies, those “foolish” Republicans, and make the actors, directors and studios a bloody fortune. Why is it exactly that the movie-going public and the most outspoken political junkies, pundits, whatever, why is it that you NEVER hear them bitching about how much money and time Hollywood Republicans lend to help their party and their candidates of choice? Could it be because they so much more open minded and understanding that everyone is human and everyone has their beliefs and causes about which they are passionate??

I have worked in the film industry for almost two decades, and NEVER ONCE have I heard one liberal bash any of these people, or ANY Hollywood Republicans simple for BEING conservative. We love their art, we love the magic many of these people bring to the screen and to the creative process, and I am CONSTANTLY amazed by the small-minded lunatics who RAIL about Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin or Susan Sarandon and their politics — boycotting their movies (for all the good it does) and just walking around grumbling “how dare they.” How DARE Sean Penn go LIVE in f’ing Haiti where there is a humanitarian disaster occurring, trying to bring attention and money to help those people. How DARE Susan Sarandon speak up on behalf of political refugees or underprivileged women. What A-holes, right?? Do you remember that liberal Hollywood and CRAZY California elected two of those political Hollywood types who “foolishly shared their political views” to the governorship of our state??? And NOTE: one of them was born in AUSTRIA. Where was the outrage about HIS birth certificate? This is one spot where the contrast between the parties is so, so black and white. HEY, GOP! Your double standards are showing.

Why don’t you nut-bombs consider just judging their work, like all of us liberals who don’t say word one when Jon Voigt or Bo Derek or Tom Selleck or Kelsey Grammer go on Fox News or show up at a GOP fundraiser? Why don’t you consider treating the Martin Sheens or the Matt Damons or the George Clooneys with the same respect with which we liberals manage to show for the Ronald Reagans, the Dwayne Johnsons, the Fred Thompsons…?

Sean Penn has just as much of a right to speak out politically and use his celebrity status to do so as Ronald Reagan did. And until those of you, like stevefraser or AZVick, “get” that, you will continue to look like the hypocritical, close-minded windbags that you are.

Chad • on Nov 7, 2011 6:31 am

I hate dumbasses who just HAVE to bring up politics. You DO realize that half of this country fits on the left side of the fence, don’t you?…or maybe you’re not smart enough.

The fact remains, some people actually like that “leftwing horsesh*t people are pushing”, and you most certain don’t speak for ALL Americans when you rail against it. So please…don’t act like you speak for everyone.

Rina • on Nov 6, 2011 2:01 am

You make some excellent points. Take Thalberg for example, for whom the major Oscar honor is named. He was known for two things that you dont see today – he was a READER. He loved books and pushed the ‘literary film’ not only making films from classic and popular novels but making them with great stars (where have THEY gone?) and very polished productions. The other thing he did which worked in tandem with this was to have films that featured great roles for women. He knew the importance of story and as much as the culture shifts and technology advances there is one thing people still go for – a great story. It is not just a matter of the top guys being pencil pushers and the actresses reduced to emaciated, frozen faced Stepfordized clones, it is the fact that nobody knews how to write a good story any more – a good premise maybe, but constructing it and bringing it to a solid conclusion? The best writing is still found in books and back in the day the studios would hire novelists – now you have a bunch of screenwriting MFAs who cant write a decent line of dialogue let alone a story.

flixnut • on Nov 6, 2011 7:10 am

Bravo, Fan…well put.

Scott • on Nov 6, 2011 11:50 am

Spot on re: your relationships comment. I arrived in Hollywood in the late nineties thinking I was a damn good screenwriter. Six years and 14 scripts later – scripts I was pretty sure were mostly excellent – I still couldn’t get read. Didn’t know anyone. So I left town, and put my law degree to use. Now I’m a successful attorney in the Midwest, earning a mid six-figure income and at the top of my field.

In my heart I know I’m probably a slightly better screenwriter than I am a lawyer, or at least equal. But, because the former is based almost soley on who you know and the latter allows entry by an outsider with no connections but a fair deal of merit, I’m out of the profession. and you know what? I’m a helluva lot happier than I was trying to land a meeting with the agents in their $3,000 suits, many of whom go home at night to their hole-in-the-wall apartments in the crappy part of Hollywood.

tenpercentisstealing • on Nov 5, 2011 4:48 am

The “buzz” begins with J. Edgar next weekend and peaks with Dragon Tattoo. Saw Edgar on Thursday and it’s going to stir up all kinds of controversy – the gay angle was worked over thanks to “Mr. Milk”. Leo is a lock for Best Actor – no one else need arrive to the Kodak.

jake • on Nov 5, 2011 9:21 am

Thank goodness because leo has deserved it for so many performances — that I hope that he finally becomes the front runner for once.

bill • on Nov 5, 2011 9:27 am

Oh, yeah. The gay angle. That will pack them in. Expect big business in about 10 major cities and nowhere else. Especialy when talking about someone as current as J. Edgar Hoover. I was talking to a couple of college students the other day and they couldn’t way to see 100 year old Clint’s gay take on Jedgar.

Fact is, I would have bought your post if you had said it will get going with Twilight and keep on going through Tin Tin. But picking out an Oscar bait flick that even it it’s best days might make 100 mil (or about as much as Horrible Bosses did last summer) and a remake by a guy who never sells tickets in David Fincher – well, thinking like that is the reason Hollywood’s in the toilet.

wrtrprod7 • on Nov 6, 2011 10:03 am

Why does everything have to be gay now?
Once upon a time the word “tolerance” meant putting up with something you didn’t really agree with.
Now if you’re not ACTIVELY PROMOTING gay issues, you’re a bigot.

Like the word “marriage” gays are hard at work changing the meaning of “tolerance,” so they can persecute others by misusing the word “bigot.”

Someone • on Nov 6, 2011 11:17 pm

Bill, are you ever right about anything_ Also do you ever NOT make a negative comment about things you know nothing about_ Youºre saying Fincher never makes any money_ I think every film except Zodiac was a hit.

Lytton Strachey • on Nov 5, 2011 10:23 am

He could win if the Academy liked him but they don’t so he won’t.
Leo is the new Paul Newman.

Justin Poppiti • on Nov 6, 2011 8:32 am

Maybe in the specific sense of not getting Oscar respect, Lytton. But, Leo doesn’t hold a candle to Newman in most other respects.

WRTRPROD7 • on Nov 6, 2011 10:01 am

Leo is the new PAUL NEWMAN, LOL? Thanks for my first good laugh of the morning.
Ol’ Pumpkin head still sounds like he’s stuck in puberty. Paul Newman was always a man.
Maybe babyface Leo needs to do a little growing up and then he’ll get his Oscar.
If he is a lock for an Oscar, then Hollywood’s standards have indeed seriously dropped.

joe • on Nov 5, 2011 6:22 am

I agree with you. There is no buzz on anything. Its just not a good year to this point.The only thing I personally want to see is War Horse. The play was a stunner.The film has to be good. Maybe some of the crap needs to go directly to tv because its obvious that people won’t pay for it. Just release the better stuff in theaters .I would love a new Slumdog. I remember seeing it and it blew me away .I want that in a film.

flixnut • on Nov 6, 2011 7:28 am

The only two movies I’m excited about are “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”, and “MI: Ghost Protocol”. No Oscar bait there, but two different big-screen viewing experiences.

Sam Carter • on Nov 5, 2011 8:16 am

Hollywood and the media filter everything thru their sex or racist lense like their puppet masters in the leftist universities. We are bored with the dishonesty.

a • on Nov 5, 2011 12:18 pm

Yeah! Herman Cain was framed!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Chad • on Nov 7, 2011 6:32 am

…and I’m bored with the predictable political comments. Ya know…the next flight out of America leaves in oh, about 30 minutes.

jake • on Nov 5, 2011 9:19 am

ARE YOU KIDDING ME — THIS IS THE EDDIE MURPHY THAT I WANT TO SEE ON THE BIG SCREEN NOT THE FAMILY STUFF HE’S BEEN DOING.

incredulous • on Nov 5, 2011 3:34 pm

I’m pretty sure he meant about Goldstein.

You must be a studio reader.

Jack • on Nov 5, 2011 11:40 pm

Hilarious…

Dustintime • on Nov 6, 2011 12:03 am

Yeah, Ratner might be an amusing party host, but this undeniable reality check, blatantly dropping the ball with such top-heavy talent, better finally put the con to rest.

For his career has been a heist.

World-class social climber (who may very well be a nice guy–I wouldn’t know), steals director’s career from a Hollywood too distracted to differentiate shameless hustle from serviceable talent.

Bottom line, as Nikki noted, there wasn’t even one laugh in the trailer.

Some of the worst comedies of all time at least had laughs in the trailer.

Obvious... • on Nov 4, 2011 1:36 pm

Hollywood just re release Beauty and the Beast, Finding Nemo at this point.

Things were a lot better a few weeks back before “Ides of March” and the rest of these audience stinkers opened.

Live and learn Hollywood. You wanted to make films “socially and politically” active. You got it. Just don’t go complaining to us about the low numbers this Fall.

College Student • on Nov 4, 2011 2:33 pm

I haven’t seen it but “Ides of March” is a rarity in that it had a tiny budget, will turn a big profit and is completely original (as in not a sequel, re-make, re-boot, re-imagining, etc.)

You’d be better off keeping your political bias out of a discussion about movies. It has been proven that the Drudge crowd isn’t as influential at the box office as it thinks it is. For evidence, take a look at Morgan Freeman calling the Tea Part racist, just a few days before his “Dolphin Tale” opened way above expectations.

Tart • on Nov 4, 2011 4:30 pm

actually, it’s an adaptation of Willimon’s 2008 play Farragut North, but point taken, I guess

College Student • on Nov 5, 2011 10:50 pm

My mistake, as I should have worded that differently. A lot of Hollywood’s great movies were based on books and stage plays.

My point was that ‘Ides of March’ started out as a story, whereas so many movies today start out as an action figure line, or a vehicle for a star, or a chance to drain a few more bucks out of a franchise…

The film enthusiast in me wants Hollywood to return to making stories, and then they can bastardize and merchandise them to death once they’re successful. The realist in me says that they lack the balls to do anything but continue on this path of spreadsheet filmmaking.

Handsome Smitty • on Nov 4, 2011 4:43 pm

A small profit in an ever shrinking pie. You call that good all you want, believing it is just a sign of delusion.

If not for the cartoons fueled by parents failing to catch subliminal liberal messages, H-Wood would be as bad off as the overall American economy (or without the studios’ distribution monopoly it would be extinct – the funny bookkeeping will fail soon enough thanks to the Internet).

And sadly, almost every film these days invites political discussion. Pathetic.

Last year just in domestic theaters it made just over 11B. In 00’s it was around 10B (in today’s dollar value), in the 90s between 8 and 10 etc.

Then add in much higher revenues from other anciallary markets today and much much much higher grosses abroad and you get the picture I hope :)

WahteverMan • on Nov 5, 2011 9:20 am

“Much higher ancillary?” You mean the DVD sales that are dropping 22-28% per year?

Online rentals are increasing but nowhere near the volume or margins that the studios get from a DVD sales.

Cable reruns aren’t worth anywhere near what the used to be. A “life” of a revenue=producing movie used to be about 7.5 years. (Read Art Murphy’s old tomes for the specifics.) After the digital era dawned, it is now about 4.5 years. Movies just 4 months old are in the used $4 bin at Blockbuster, and are $6.50 in sealed DVDs at Wal-Mart in 7 months.

Hollywood tries to make up for it by getting bigger box office grosses, so they pour money into marketing budgets, and most of that money is wasted. Movies as a rule a very poorly marketed these days as the marketing chiefs just panic and buy every time slot or venue they can leverage into. There is no real salesmanship these days, and the idiots in charge think they can either ignore or sue their way out of the internet. They do really poorly when it comes to integrating it. Sony, Universal suck at it more than Warner’s, Paramount, but that is like saying they ate only two turds instead of three before they realized they were eating turds.

stevefraser • on Nov 5, 2011 7:03 pm

Interesting…the few movies I go to they start with an ad discouraging “pirating”…It makes my day, as anything to take $$$ out of the hypocritical greedy hollywood leftists is good news….BTW, on a separate point, isn’t it the children’s movies that outdraw all the other movies by a considerable amount.

TF • on Nov 5, 2011 6:04 am

“Subliminal liberal messages” in cartoons? Really? You sound like a nutjob.

Xartoons • on Nov 6, 2011 6:20 am

That’s what I’m saying! Leave cartoons out of this, you cray-cray!

dopleganger • on Nov 5, 2011 4:16 am

I still find it hard to believe that Ides is an independent movie.. Whatever.. I just see George being George.

anyway. I love that Moneyball is still hanging in the top 10 after what 7 or 8 weeks. And it is making the same money that Ides is at this late date. Only a few thousand separate the films. I don’t get Tower Heist. I would rather see Oceans 11 or 13 (12 does not exist for me). And why is Cassey A in this movie. The guy has talent. Not saying the movie is bad. I didn’t see it. But Cassey did the Oceans movies why is he repeating it with this one.

And I for one am sick sick of the 3D movies. They are now just a way to get that extra money, and the public is saying NO.

There was not much that would make me go to the theater this weekend.. and I may be in the minority.. but I LOVE GOING TO THE MOVIES.

Rina • on Nov 5, 2011 4:56 am

“The Drudge crowd”. Sigh. Drudge was the first and still the best news aggregator and provides links to many liberal sites including Huffington, etc – they do not reciprocate. As for Tower Heist, I think Stiller would have done better to politely back off discussions about politics in his Piers Morgan interview instead of reminding us all of who he endorses. If that is one reason people choose not to see a movie, why hand it to them? A nice – ‘I cant get into politics’ and turn the discussion back to the movie is not an option for him?
But i think ROclockOk and Sally from Chitown make good points. There are no buzzworthy films, only films that get a lot of commercial air time. And our wallets are strained and more and more we are thinking of movies as DVD rentals vs $10+transportation fare+snacks night or afternoon out. Add to that the fact that there are no real stars any more – no stars who on name alone can get us to a movie – and the picture does not look good. Maybe some time to do some internal polling of the core audience.

100stones3x • on Nov 5, 2011 10:53 am

“Drudge was the first and still the best news aggregator and provides links to many liberal sites including Huffington, etc – they do not reciprocate”

Huffington Post DOES reciprocate to Drudge. Just check out their website.

• on Nov 5, 2011 2:16 pm

Why would anyone link to a news aggregator? Aggregators collect OTHER PEOPLE’S journalism. To link to drudge instead of the original source is pointless media grab-ass.

Drudge is pretty smart though – no comments on his site so his minions are let loose to spam their unchecked anger and hate on every other comment section on the internet. I feel bad for anyone who’s that angry all the time. Get out of the house. Enjoy your life. It’s not that bad.

dr.dre • on Nov 5, 2011 11:32 pm

The Drudge Crowd is the best thing about my Saturdays reading DHD. All the conspiracy theories about the Hollywood leftists out to push their politics, profit be damned! Ah, the kooks — always entertaining.
It would actually be great if “Hollywood” (yeah it’s just one big monolithic group-thinking gang, like the Drudgies say!) had an agenda like that, then the struggling writers (like me) would know all we had to do to make a living is write a movie with a liberal agenda and we could sell it. Unfortunately, Drudgies, it’s about trying to appeal to as many people as possible (that’s what generates the most B.O., get it?), which usually means washing out any point of view at all. Big studios want big money. They care about profit. And that’s it.
But you all please keep on keepin’ on with the conspiracies, it’s way more entertaining than what’s at the theaters…

wrtrprod7 • on Nov 6, 2011 10:10 am

Wow, you must be in new in town. You have no idea how Hollywood works.
Did you see the glut of anti-Iraq war movies that came out and tanked?
Because there were a LOT.
And they all FAILED.
So much for trying to appeal to the heartland.
Try seeing reality instead of projected your version of it on here.

WhateverMan • on Nov 5, 2011 9:33 am

Actually, your assessment of Freeman is incomplete.

You have to look at the audience. Dolphin Tale, first of all, did fall short of what it’s tracking predicted and there was about a 12% shortfall from what tracking said from when Freeman’s comments were circulated and opening day. Neither of us know conclusively if that was the cause, but the trending is there and easy to see.

As for your disparagement of the “Drudge” crowd, there is a LOT of evidence against you on that one, from both the left and the right. What demographics show, however, is that professed liberals are much more likely to boycott a movie than a conservative based on perceived politics of the movie. Purchasing trending shows, however, that conservatives are much more likely to purchase a copy of a movie than a liberal is.

The Harvard study from 2007 (I think; it has been a couple of years and I don’t want to check the shelf) shows also that a liberal is nearly 8 TIMES more likely to steal/pirate a movie than a conservative. Excactly why is not known, be it the person is younger, more likely to be in school with high-bandwitdth internet connections, feels entitled, spends more time on the internet than in stores, etc.

As for Freeman’s comments, given this was a children’s movie and few children follow politics or even follow celebrity news (that is, the non-Hannah Montana-iCarly kind) his comments would not have had an effect on a kid’s choice. However, as was seen by demographic splays of other movies like Clooney, Garafalo, etc. there is definitely a trend that vocal political themes or entities turn off potential audience members.

According to the Gallup March 2011 poll, 39% of the nation describes themselves as conservative (this does not mean Republican, this means conservative which has components in both Democratic and GOP parties, as well as Independents). By comparison, only 19% describe themselves as liberal. If Hollywood wants to make $80 million movies geared to the 19%, that is their prerogative, but it is horrible business. If you make a move that automatically alienates 39% of your potential audience, you better not think you are entitles to a $150 million capital outlay for production and marketing for it. Go do it for $30 million and micro market yourself.

Shakes Spear • on Nov 7, 2011 1:30 am

“as was seen by demographic splays of other movies like Clooney, Garafalo, etc. there is definitely a trend that vocal political themes or entities turn off potential audience members.”

Why then, if liberals are “more likely” to boycott a film than a conservative, do YOU believe work done by Clooney or Garafalo are less successful than work done by the Stallone, the Schwarzeneggar, or the Willis?? You make ZERO sense.

While liberals are probably more outspoken about “boycotting” this or that, there is no doubt that it is Republicans who refuse to see films with overt liberals like Sean Penn or Susan Saradon, while liberals can always be found at Clint Eastwood or Bruce Willis fare. Your numbers are super wonky, dude. But that’s not surprising coming from a GOPer.

Stacy • on Nov 5, 2011 1:19 am

I’m missing something – Ides of March cost $12.5 million and has only made $34.5 million, so how is it going to “turn a big profit”? They’ll spend 2-3 times as much money on P&A as the movie cost to make. Once again George Clooney comes up empty at the box office. Awards consideration aside, at what point do people stop financing Clooney’s bombs? Especially when his Oscar bait isn’t putting butts in seats and nobody’s making money except Clooney.

hopeless pedant • on Nov 4, 2011 1:59 pm

Obvious

I assume you are pro-capitalist.
The Ides of March was an inexpensive film.
It will make all involved a profit.
Isn’t that what capitalism all about?
Sorry, but facts are the enemy of ideologues like you, as always.

Handsome Smitty • on Nov 4, 2011 4:47 pm

I know, right?

Seriously, using profits is something Marxiats will stomach to spread their message, even of it causes temporary blindness.

Dawn • on Nov 5, 2011 2:57 pm

Ides cost a little over $12million and sold strong. It will be profitable unlike Moneyball and Tower Heist.

markLouis • on Nov 4, 2011 2:15 pm

Who wins this weekend’s Leading Man award, Harold or Kumar? Or the animated cat? (We can just write off everyone from the Ben Stiller movie, right?)

Sg. Grant • on Nov 4, 2011 2:22 pm

All the top 10 football matchups this weekend should lower the numbers.

Xartoons • on Nov 6, 2011 6:22 am

This.

Moore Man • on Nov 7, 2011 10:52 am

Exactly!! It blows my mind that America’s obsession with football doesn’t seem to factor into the release schedule for films. A couple of months ago, I read through the same tired littany of comments about poor box office performance when it was clear to me Americans were gearing up for the kick-off of football season.

There’s always the reports on the “surprising” box office up-swing from Friday to Saturday….ummm, most Americans are at the local high school on Friday night, so it’s not a surprise. Teenagers might go see the 10 o’clock showing with their friends after the game, but that’s it. Then you have college football season starters and everyone gets rabid for that, especially in the Mid-West and Southeast, so Saturdays are taken up with football too.

I have this image in my head of a bunch of Ivy League, metro-sexual types sitting in SoHo while sipping designer martinis and European import beer while discussing what middle America wants…..as if they fucking know! Hollywood has no insight into their customers’ lives, so ineffective marketing and product placement (release schedule) is going to be a problem.

Curious • on Nov 4, 2011 2:48 pm

Why did anyone think that anyone under 35 would be attracted to Tower Heist? Ben Stiller is 46 and Eddie is 50+, and hasn’t had a hit in 5 years. You can’t expect young men or women to go to the movie theatre if the big releases feature men as old (or older) than their parents.

A producer • on Nov 4, 2011 3:42 pm

Curious: Very smart observation. Stiller is 46, still playing a 28 year old. What this needed was to be cast with 30 year old actors.

Shakes Spear • on Nov 7, 2011 1:17 am

These posts about the ages of Stiller and Murphy would be highly entertaining if they weren’t the same disgusting rants that have floated about the lives of actresses for decades. Four words: SEX AND THE CITY. If the characters are good, and likable, and the story is promising, the crowds will go. And if, occasionally, someone manages to write a great screenplay, then you’ve got yourself a hit, regardless of the wrinkles on the faces of your cast. Jerks.

Riley • on Nov 4, 2011 4:44 pm

But where are the young comedy superstars to take their place?

selli • on Nov 5, 2011 12:33 am

Young funny guys??? See Alan Ritchson – Blue Mountain State on Spike TV or Joel Mchale – community or Jonah Hill – wasn’t funny since super bad but you know what I mean. They are out there.

Not Joel's mom • on Nov 5, 2011 9:10 am

Joel is almost 40. Not exactly a spring chicken.

Riley • on Nov 5, 2011 10:36 am

I know they are out there. But they certainly aren’t tearing up the box office like a young Eddie Murphy did in his day. Even Ben Stiller a while back and a bit now. Until they get some good and profitable movies under their belt, studios will continue to throw money at these old dogs.

Shakes Spear • on Nov 7, 2011 1:22 am

They didn’t “tear up the box office” because most moviegoers are savvy these days and know to check review sites online before they waste their money. By the standards of those hand-wringing about old actors, we would’ve never had The Golden Girls or Sunshine Boys or Grumpy Old Men or Cocoon… I repeat… any actor of any age can be profitable if they work with a great script and a good director.

The problem is… the studio heads seem to want lead actors to polish the turds they’re green-lighting, and when a picture under-performs, they just want to point to the talent. This is nonsense. Stop choosing scripts based on marketing stats and “trailer moments,” and you idiots might pick some winners. Even Burt Reynolds made a comeback.

asdf • on Nov 5, 2011 10:30 am

Has nothing to do with their age. These two do the same movie every single time.

We know what we’re going to get with a Stiller or Murphy movie: boring “hijinks” and tired, recycled jokes.

Their age isn’t relevant when you know ahead of time what the jokes will be.

IdiotProof • on Nov 6, 2011 9:27 am

Huh? What does their age have to do with anything? Do some fact-checking. A lot of movies in the past 20-30 years have done remarkably well with “older” comedic actors in the leads (Robin Williams, Bill Murray, etc.).

Robert • on Nov 4, 2011 2:58 pm

You know the box office is struggling when they rely on an Eddie Murphy film…

You know the box office is struggling when they remake everything…

You know the box office is struggling when…(Feel free to continue this thread)

vva • on Nov 4, 2011 3:35 pm

It’s not just Hollywood making shit movies. A lot of indie shit coming out as well.

College Student • on Nov 5, 2011 10:54 pm

Agreed.

This whole year has been forgettable. Even Pixar couldn’t bring us a good movie.

Not sure how they’ll find 10 movies to nominate for Best Picture.

Joe in SM • on Nov 4, 2011 4:40 pm

I have no desire to see either of those two movies and I’m a movie lover. Hollywood, what does that tell you? How does it feel knowing that I prefer renting an old movie rather than seeing a new one?

Heath • on Nov 4, 2011 6:37 pm

Hollywood gets the money whether you rent or go to the theater, so they probably feel all warm and fuzzy about your choice.

SinCityFinancier • on Nov 4, 2011 4:58 pm

The original Harold & Kumar was very funny.

John • on Nov 4, 2011 5:19 pm

Would all of you people shut the fuck the up and just stop being picky about movies in theaters for once? I swear, I’m about ready to shove my fist up someone’s dickhole if I hear one more complaint. How about you just go see a movie and decide for yourself instead of sitting on your fat asses at home. But what do i know, everyone here is conservative sucking pricks

Cheryl Woodbridge VA • on Nov 5, 2011 7:24 am

I found your comment to be outrageous. Too bad you can’t express yourself in a more appropriate way. Having said that, if I take 2 kids to the movies in the daytime, it costs about $75 to $100. I think the exhorbitant pricing is keeping people away.

Paul • on Nov 6, 2011 9:06 am

How on earth does it cost 3 people in Virginia “$75 to $100” to go to a movie in the daytime?? That seems really exaggerated.

Dan • on Nov 6, 2011 11:56 am

Someone’s getting gypped. I can take you and your two kids to the IMAX for $45, or the Grove or the Arclight if you prefer. Or anywhere except Virginia apparently. Now if you stuff them and yourself with extra large sodas and buckets of popcorn, then your cost might hit around $75, but that’s what you get for partaking of that garbage anyway.

JR • on Nov 5, 2011 8:05 am

My advice to you is never try to get a job in sales, you’ll starve to death.

TODO • on Nov 5, 2011 10:10 am

How about ignoring ALL the “entertainment”sewage that you willingly have mainlined into your cortex. There’s nothing left out there except animated crap to keep children zoned-out for a couple hours, and toxic, foul-mouthed degenerate, adolescent brain-rot posing as “drama” or “comedy”. S**tcan the television. Skip the expensive trip to the multiplex. Go read a book or take a walk in the sunshine. Protect your consciousness. It’s the only one you have. I AM THE 1% that finally realizes the truth that’s been staring us all in the face for so long now: “American Culture–an oxymoron for our times”.

poe • on Nov 5, 2011 10:34 am

Nasty Post of the Weekend!
Thanks for spreading the love!

Xartoons • on Nov 6, 2011 6:25 am

John, if that’s “what you do know,” you obviously don’t know much. I agree with the above poster. A book would be nice. Maybe learn some people skills, or anger management?

Goon • on Nov 6, 2011 9:29 am

Ooooh, someone’s looking for a fight… and came to Deadline comments section to find one. Go to the movies, dummy.

SinCityFinancier • on Nov 4, 2011 5:38 pm

Reality on profit margins for film: According to Forbes 2010 “Top 200 Film Turkey’s; only 4 films broke even. Broke even is not profitable. Will 2011 be a repeat?

resident • on Nov 4, 2011 7:14 pm

But but…those four films were from a list of 200 turkeys.
Not a list of all films for 2010.
It’s like the record biz in the 1970’s. An exec at WB told me there were over 300 releases per month worldwide; all labels.
The top releases get the push of course, but the gravy covers the turkeys…unless you’re an indie with few films.

Ouch Universal!

Darrelle • on Nov 4, 2011 6:01 pm

The original H&K had a wonderful surprise: Doogie Howser becoming NPH right in front of us.
Anyone seen Tower Heist (without being paid to)? As Nikki mentioned, not much in the trailer. Any moments that got a collective laugh from the audience? Clever lines beyond “And here I thought…”?

Heath • on Nov 4, 2011 6:35 pm

Tower Heist is at 68% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is astounding for an action comedy. Even more astounding when you consider these critics all really wanted to hate it considering the cast. Saying you hate it just because Eddie Murphy or older people are in it shows the same ignorance you people profess to hate.

M.Scott Verne • on Nov 4, 2011 6:46 pm

While Tower Heist holds no interest to me, I think the trailer looked more interesting than a typical movie of this genre. It does seem pretty slim pickings at the multi-plexes lately, but this is the time of year when they release the “also-ran” films. Presumably it will pick up near the end of Nov & into Dec.

Darrelle • on Nov 4, 2011 7:18 pm

If you look at the top critics’ reviews, few were enthusiastic and several of the best — Anthony Lane, Andrew O’Hehir and John Anderson — were decidedly negative about the film and the acting (though uniformly positive re Tea Leoni and Alan Alda). Here’s a pleasant thought: a character-driven, indie dark comedy with Leoni and Alda as the lead actors.

D.Z. • on Nov 4, 2011 10:39 pm

I’m not sure how H+K 3 is considered a disappointment. It had a bigger PTA than Tower Heist, even *with* the 3D surcharge, and it no doubt cost a helluva lot less to shoot, since the stars’ salaries won’t inflate the budget. Plus, it’s opening is actually *higher* than that of the second film. And for an R-rated threequel competing against a G and PG-13 film, that’s pretty good. I don’t think those Broken Lizard movies have had that kind of consistency.

Ben M. • on Nov 4, 2011 10:51 pm

Honestly, I think these are decent numbers for both new releases, Tower Heist didn’t have the marketing push of Due Date as far as I could tell so I was expecting $25-30 million, and that Harold & Kumar number would put it as the best opening in the series and actually about three times what the first film opened to.

Puss in Boots underperformed last weekend but that hold looks impressive, makes me wonder if it couldn’t have pulled in a Megamind-sized opening if it opened this weekend which is a more traditional one for family audiences and doesn’t have the weather further disrupting business.

Leo • on Nov 4, 2011 11:00 pm

When is Hollywood going to get its act together? There hasn’t been one movie that has come out in months that looked even remotely good. And why cast Eddie Murphy in anything anymore? That guy hasn’t been in a good film since the Nutty Professor — 15 years ago! All those Shrek movies sucked (too loaded with lame pop-culture references) so Puss in Boots probably isn’t that great. Dreamworks animation just doesn’t compare to Pixar. As for harold and Kumar, the only thing funny about the original was Neil Patrick Harris doing coke off of some hooker’s ass. Does he do that in this one?

dman • on Nov 4, 2011 11:47 pm

that’s stupid… you make it sound like hollywood is one company or something… that’s like saying why dont white people learn to dance…

and there have been plenty of good movies. they just dont open huge like sequels or superheroes

A list of the highest-rated films currently available is not the same thing as providing a list of recent, quality films.

Notice that the tops on your thoughtless link are documentaries, and a majority aren’t even available in most territories, if you’ve even heard of them AND have a desire to see them.

We’re not lamenting the loss of extraordinarily niche films hyper-targeted for a sub-7 figure budget that still manage to barely break even. We’re looking for quality storytelling for large audiences. Like Hollywood did fairly consistently for almost 100 years… and then stopped.

Yeah, there’s one or two good films out there… but Moneyball is not a perfect film and shouldn’t be held up as an icon of achievement. It should be average. A 100% or 95% or whatever score is basically meaningless. If Moneyball get’s 95% what does Casablanca get? 246% ? Drive has 93%… so where does that put Bullit?

The BEST films we have today don’t hold a candle to average films of previous decades but are held up as GREAT.

Today we don’t even know what great is.

But you can link to rottentomatoes so, yeah, it’s all better.

Paul • on Nov 6, 2011 9:19 am

Thanks for the “get off my lawn!” post, Incredulous, but you’ll note that Drive is at 8.3 on IMDb, while Bullitt (not “Bullit”) is at 7.4. So a jury of actual viewers has voted, and found Drive superior…which makes sense, since Bullitt is a relatively paint-by-numbers plot enhanced by some great driving.

The point is that a lot of people are still finding great movies to watch. You might just be jaded.

ZenMaker • on Nov 5, 2011 3:17 pm

“that’s stupid… you make it sound like hollywood is one company or something… that’s like saying why dont white people learn to dance…”

That’s a dumb analogy. Hollywood is an insular community. The 6 big studios — Universal, Viacom, Columbia, Warner Bros, Disney, and 20th Century Fox — make 95% of the movies. The heads of these studios all know each other. They all know what the other is working on. They all know what movies are in production or what scripts are out there. In many cases, they hire and promote the same people, with execs shifting from one studio to another. They also often join funds to make a particular film. White people, or any race, are not part of an insular community. They are individuals. A white guy from NYC is nothing like a white guy from Dallas, who in turn is nothing like a white guy from Sao Paolo. They adhere to different cultures, seek different goals, possess different ideologies etc. Hollywood is basically a cabal. The big-wigs are all familiar with each other. They adhere to the same culture, have the same goals, and in most cases, have the same ideology.

GN • on Nov 5, 2011 3:17 am

The rest of “White Castle” clearly went over your head, Leo.

michael • on Nov 4, 2011 11:31 pm

HAROLD & KUMAR underperforming? It has a higher opening than the 2nd and will have outgrossed the original by the end of its first week. Yes, there’s the higher 3D surcharge and all, but it’s not like this is a disappointment compared to its predecessors, and as a niche R-rated comedy in a generally depressed movie marketplace, I’d say it’s doing just fine out of the gate.

jay • on Nov 5, 2011 7:57 am

factoring in inflation and the fact that this one opened on more screens than the last one, and in 3-d, and cost considerably more to produce and received a much bigger marketing push … it’s a soft opening. fewer butts in seats.

Jez • on Nov 5, 2011 4:02 pm

Let’s wait until after Christmas to decide whether or not Harold & Kumar 3 is a disapointment! I sense decent holds in the coming weeks, at least in the build up to Christmas.

Exactly 2 years ago Jim Carrey’s A Christmas Carol opened softly but had decent holds in the build up to Christmas itself.

D.Z. • on Nov 5, 2011 10:36 pm

jay: Um, the previous movie only came out three years ago, and this film only had 300 more theaters than the prior one.

ElGorcho • on Nov 4, 2011 11:36 pm

Joe in SM, you would’ve been better off saying you downloaded off a torrent or streamed it from one of those offshore sites. You see that way you’d come across like you’re sticking it to the man and instead of you kno, and idiot?

dman • on Nov 4, 2011 11:48 pm

that’s a totally good expected opening for harold and kumar… the last one just made 40 total…

The Truth • on Nov 5, 2011 12:56 am

About time you call it like it is… “Bad Box Office”

SMP Belltown • on Nov 5, 2011 1:08 am

This isn’t a Top 10 comment/question but…

Does anyone around here know how many movie theatres in the US are still showing “Midnight in Paris”?

The film’s been out for about 6 months now, and in at least a few cities it’s still playing on a screen or two. I’m guessing that it’s maybe still showing in 50+ theaters nationwide, but I haven’t seen any offical stats about it since it passed the $50 million box office mark a while ago. It would be interesting to know what sort of audiences that movie’s doing these days.

ari • on Nov 5, 2011 7:42 am

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is still playing in Santa Fe.

Owen • on Nov 5, 2011 8:45 am

go to the link and put in your zip. it’s still playing in my local neighborhood, so it’s still playing in yours…

The reason I asked is because I haven’t noticed a listing for Midnight in Paris since on the Mojo site since September. But Midnight obviously is still playing out there. I’m sure that sites like BOM (or this one) are often at the mercy of the studios/distributors for that sort of data, but I have no idea if there are standard practices for their providing this sort of info.

I’d love to know how many theatres Midnight in Paris is playing at in the USA this weekend, which is nearly 6 months after it was released. That seems like a pretty long run for a non-IMAX film this decade. I don’t think that even the The Black Swan lasted 6 months in its general release. But I could be wrong about that.

Bill_the_Bear • on Nov 6, 2011 7:42 am

Last weekend (28-30 Oct.) it was playing in 96 theatres, according to Box Office Mojo, for $61,167.

It’s still playing at the AMC here in Montréal…in its 23rd week.

SMP Belltown • on Nov 6, 2011 12:46 pm

Thanks, Bill_the_Bear. I didn’t think to look in the weekly lists. (I usually look at the daily results, but I think it’s been absent from those lists for a while.)

Being in over 50 theaters afer 23+ weeks is notable, I think. Even if it isn’t making tons of money anymore.

But on 96 screens? Wow. Is this the safe-choice date movie of 2011 or something?

Cash • on Nov 5, 2011 1:16 am

In what world is an 85 million dollar budget considered “cheap?”

da truth • on Nov 5, 2011 1:57 am

– In what world is an 85 million dollar budget considered “cheap?

Err, in the real world maybe :)

MexyMartini • on Nov 5, 2011 7:54 am

Yes, saying that $85 million is cheap, is a bit much – unless marketing is thrown in, as well.